Tax fairness: Shifting the tax burden towards the upper end?

Rawls and Taxation

John Rawls’s theory of justice is strikingly silent on taxation, despite its centrality to the maintenance of background justice. This paper argues that taxation must be seen not as a technical instrument of redistribution, but as a constitutive element of the basic structure, shaping property rights and distributive outcomes. Building on Murphy and Nagel’s institutional account of ownership (2002) and Sugin’s reading of Rawlsian justice (2004), I show that fiscal design is indispensable to securing fair equality of opportunity and the fair value of political liberties. Against the “narrow view” of public reason (Freeman 2003; Quong 2004), I contend that taxation belongs among the constitutional essentials and must satisfy the principle of publicity. While Rawls’s textual remarks occasionally allow proportional taxes, the internal logic of justice as fairness implies progressivity, necessary to prevent dynastic concentrations of wealth and to sustain reciprocity and legitimacy in a well-ordered society.  

Procedural Unfairness: Self-Incrimination Without Immunity in Tax Administration

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is responsible for collecting the substantial revenue required to support Australia’s economic stability, support social service initiatives, and develop public infrastructure. To fulfil this mandate, the Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner) has wide-ranging duties and authority to administer, assess, and enforce tax obligations. The administrative nature of the Commissioner’s powers underpins a complex relationship between the government and taxpayers, necessitating a careful balance between administrative efficiency and the protection of taxpayer rights. Indeed, the efficacy of Australia’s self-assessment framework requires voluntary compliance, which can only be achieved when taxpayers perceive integrity in the taxation system. This article contends that one aspect of this balance, the treatment of compelled self-incriminating evidence in tax investigations, has tipped decisively against taxpayer protection, a claim developed across the analysis that follows.

Americans favor predistributive over redistributive economic policies

Redistributive policies designed to reduce economic inequality through taxes and transfers (e.g., safety-net benefits funded by progressive taxation) receive less support in the United States than in many Western democracies. Recent work suggests Americans may be more receptive to “predistributive” policies, which seek to reduce economic inequality before taxes and transfers (e.g., minimum-wage increases). Yet existing evidence leaves open whether this support gap characterizes contemporary Americans overall, and whether it persists when the same policy proposals are described in predistributive vs. redistributive terms, with their core provisions held constant. Across 31 national U.S. survey waves from 2015 to 2024 (total N=384,248), we find greater support for policies classified as predistributive than redistributive. We then fielded a preregistered experiment with a national U.S. sample (N=1,009), randomly varying whether otherwise identical policy proposals were described as increasing earnings for people lower in the income distribution, shifting resources from higher- to lower-income individuals, or presented only with the policy description given in all conditions. Support was higher under predistributive than redistributive descriptions. Comparison with the control condition clarifies this difference: Predistributive descriptions received support comparable to control, whereas redistributive descriptions received lower support. Exploratory analyses suggest perceived respect for hard work and beneficiary deservingness were associated with the support gap. Together, these results suggest Americans prefer policies that reduce inequality by influencing earnings more than through taxes and transfers.

Rethinking Local Choice: Experimental Evidence on Taxpayer Sentiment and Public School Funding

Taxpayers often have conflicting views on what constitutes fair taxation and how tax revenues should be allocated. We work with Vermont legislators on the policy concern of sentiment in a property tax setting, given the Vermont Supreme Court ruling around the principle of educational equality. To explore tax sentiment in a complex and highly regulated environment, we use a behavioral public administration approach for our experiment. Our findings are threefold: (1) we identify four central themes of taxpayer sentiment regarding property taxes: fairness and equity, transparency and accountability, responsible use of public funds, and the burden on vulnerable populations; (2) we demonstrate that taxpayer sentiment and agency are significantly shaped by how property tax revenue is allocated; and (3) we show how practitioner‐academic collaborations can address the tensions inherent in tax policy design.

The End of DEI

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is one of the most polarizing issues in business and society. Advocates claim that DEI enhances fairness, while critics argue it undermines meritocracy. The problems often stem from the practice of DEI—reducing it to demographic diversity—rather than its principle. This paper proposes an alternative framework—Potential, Synergy, and Inclusion—that preserves DEI's objectives while addressing its weaknesses. Potential emphasizes recruiting individuals for their capacity to create future value rather than past achievements. Demographics can be informative about an applicant's trajectory, but many other aspects of their background are also relevant. Synergy focuses on building teams with complementary skills and perspectives. One such synergy arises from cognitive diversity, for which demographics are only a partial source. Inclusion enables employees to voice ideas, challenge norms, and overcome structural frictions. While DEI is viewed as advancing only minority groups and primarily aligned with one side of the political spectrum, the proposed approach seeks to grow the pie for the benefit of all.

An agenda for real-world fairness research to inform policy and organizations.